1 / 20

Question Trails & Commonsense Justice

Question Trails & Commonsense Justice. Catriona McKay Supervisors: Associate Professor Mark Nolan & Professor Mike Smithson. Background. QTs on the agenda of legal system and Law Reform Bodies (E.g. NZLC, 2001; NSWLRC, 2007; VLRC, 2009; QLRC, 2009) But, limited research

Download Presentation

Question Trails & Commonsense Justice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Question Trails & Commonsense Justice Catriona McKay Supervisors: Associate Professor Mark Nolan & Professor Mike Smithson

  2. Background • QTs on the agenda of legal system and Law Reform Bodies (E.g. NZLC, 2001; NSWLRC, 2007; VLRC, 2009; QLRC, 2009) • But, limited research • Lack of research on context • Theoretical foundations • Aim to examine specific contextual factors influencing QTs • QTs fit in broader decision-making context

  3. Theoretical Models – Cognitive Load Approach • Extra-legal factors are less cognitively demanding default • Lead to poor decision-making outcomes • Extra legal references should mediate beneficial effects of QTs

  4. Commonsense Justice • Extra-legal factors as part of conscious, deliberate decision-making process • QTs may reduce cognitive load but won’t necessarily reduce extra-legal references and/or improve decision quality ? ?

  5. The Present Study • Effectiveness of QTs • Objective decision quality • Percieved difficulty & decision confidence • Role of extra-legal factors/commonsense justice • Contextual factors • Individual cognitive differences • Need for cognition • Need for closure • Verbal probabilities • Seriousness • Standards of proof; Structural biases

  6. Hypotheses • QTs will improve the overall quality of decision-making • This will be mediated by the number of extra-legal references i.e. More extra-legal references will be associated with lower quality decision-making • By reducing cognitive load QTs will lead participants in QT conditions to perceive the task as less difficult and to be more confident in their decision

  7. Design & Participants • Individual mock jurors • 3 conditions: • No QT – oral instructions only • 2 x oral instructions + QT conditions • 93 participants – convenience sampling • 32 male; 59 female; 1 other • 71 students; 21 community • Age 17 – 79 (M = 28)

  8. Procedure • Cognitive Questionnaire – for individual cognitive variables • Read factual scenario – retained for remainder of study • Heard recorded oral instructions • Completed outcome questionnaire (with or without QT) • Decision task – verdict + justification • Subjective confidence and difficulty

  9. Materials • Facts and QTs: Chambers (NZ) reproduced in VLRC Report, 2008 • 3 offences • Aggravated Robbery • Kidnapping • Indecent assault • Adapted for Australian law/context • Oral instructions written/recorded for the study – based on NSW Bench Book

  10. Coding Procedure • Verdict justification – coded for: • Overall quality • No. of extra-legal references • Relevant e.g. “even though there was no child lock it’s hard to get out of the moving vehicle, let alone on a busy road in a speeding car” (Guilty kidnapping verdict, QT condition) • Irrelevant/Incorrect e.g. "it is assumed that the pleasure of almost having sex make [it] not an indecent assault.” (Not guilty, indecent assault verdict, instruction only) • No. of legal/factual references

  11. Results • Subjective measures • Confidence • Difficulty • Decision Quality • Extra-legal references • Implications for theoretical models, future research and the use of question trails

  12. Subjective Measures Hypothesis: Participants in QT conditions will be more confident in decisions and rate task as less difficult. Results • Difficulty: No significant effect • Confidence: Mixed results

  13. Mean Confidence Ratings • Generally no significant difference • BUT for guilty kidnapping verdicts • QT  lower confidence (p = 0.048)

  14. Why? • QTs draw attention to specific elements which might have otherwise been completely overlooked • May reduce confidence because participants are more engaged therefore more aware of the possible doubts in their reasoning

  15. Decision Quality Quality ratings for aggravated robbery: Significant effect for QT for guilty verdicts (p = 0.022) Quality ratings for indecent assault (above) and kidnapping (below) No significant QT effects on quality

  16. Extra-legal factors • Extra-legal factors did not mediate improvement for aggravated robbery • No main effects for extra-legal factors on overall quality • Except for guilty aggravated robbery verdicts: • More extra-legal references  higher quality reasoning (p = 0.026) • May reflect greater engagement with the law

  17. Offence-level differences • Very little (if any) previous research • Possibly artefactual • Fatigue/boredom effects • Offence complexity (e.g. Semmler & Brewer, 2002) • Need for future research including difficulty for separate offences • Moral ambiguity (e.g. Horowitz, 1985) • Implications for use of QTs in certain types of trials

  18. Key findings • Weak support for question trails improving decision-making • No evidence that they make it worse • Surprising results for confidence and difficulty • Challenges cognitive load approach • Extra-legal factors not necessarily bad • Contextual factors • Offence level differences • Individual differences • Incorporation of standard of proof

  19. Conclusions • Question trails may be useful but they are not a “silver bullet” • Effectiveness likely to be influenced by various contextual factors • Offence characteristics • Individual differences • Impact at the group level • Probabilities and biases • Both future research and future implementation must consider QTs in context

More Related